mlb_official_scorers

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds 'Auth: none needed' and a return structure, which go beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint). It doesn't contradict annotations. However, it covers only basic behavioral aspects and omits any details about default date handling or pagination. Given annotations already establish safety, the description provides moderate added context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise: a single-line purpose, then three short bullet-like sections for return, auth, and an alias note. It front-loades the main statement and avoids redundancy. The final note about pl_match_officials is cryptic but does not add significant bulk.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only lookup with two optional parameters, the description includes the essential return structure and auth requirement. No output schema exists, but the returned {roster:[{person, job}]} is specified. The description does not discuss default behaviors or error cases, but these are minor for a read-only tool with no required parameters.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters having descriptions ('As-of date.' and 'Sport id.'). The tool description does not add any further interpretation or usage details for these parameters. Since the schema carries the semantic load, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds no extra value beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'Official scorer assignments' which is a clear verb+resource combination. It clearly indicates what the tool returns (roster structure) and distinguishes itself from other MLB tools like mlb_umpires or mlb_datacasters by being specific to scorer assignments. The additional note about pl_match_officials introduces a cross-request possibility but does not muddy the primary purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The note 'Also answers this: pl_match_officials' is a hint that this tool may serve a dual role, but it does not explain selection criteria or when to prefer other tools. For a tool with many MLB siblings, this leaves usage ambiguous.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.